MonsterEnvy
Hero
We got a bit of Greyhawk with Saltmarsh, but I would not mind some more.
I just don't know what the problem with Greyhawk is, specifically.
Those are the only ones to whom I'd be willing to make a concession on this.5. Purists who only spell gray with an "a."
I always love when people leave out "in good faith people don't like it"I've had a number of threads on Greyhawk. I think that the pushback can be roughly divided as follows:
1. People who love Forgotten Realms, and want more FR material, and think that Greyhawk will divert from that.
2. People who hate anything "the olds" like on principle. (There's a fair number of those, but they usually argue that Something something grognards will hate anything anyway so why bother?).
3. People who don't understand why Greyhawk, to this day, has a devoted following.
4. People who mistakenly assume that Greyhawk is just the same as every other "kitchen sink" setting.
5. Purists who only spell gray with an "a."
I always love when people leave out "in good faith people don't like it"
I mean the only setting I dislike enough to argue they should stop publishing is FR so I know it is a lost point... but all I am saying is that some of those people MUST have good reasons not the ones you listed.Well, there are a number of settings that (in good faith) I don't like.
But I don't spend my time arguing that WoTC shouldn't publish those settings, and deprive people that do like them of the pleasure of seeing something they enjoy.
....which makes me think that maybe the people who are doing the arguing probably have other things in mind.
There is a thought that any amount of time and resources spent on stuff for other people, is a lost opportunity of spending time on stuff that's specifically for me. For the record, I do not think this way.Well, there are a number of settings that (in good faith) I don't like.
But I don't spend my time arguing that WoTC shouldn't publish those settings, and deprive people that do like them of the pleasure of seeing something they enjoy.
....which makes me think that maybe the people who are doing the arguing probably have other things in mind.
I mean the only setting I dislike enough to argue they should stop publishing is FR so I know it is a lost point... but all I am saying is that some of those people MUST have good reasons not the ones you listed.
For a good example of that exact line of logic, go dig up the Psionics thread from a few months back. There were quite a few posts that came down to "we don't want WotC working on psionics because it will waste developer time that could be used on projects people actually want".
There is a thought that any amount of time and resources spent on stuff for other people, is a lost opportunity of spending time on stuff that's specifically for me. For the record, I do not think this way.
I'm guessing that comes up in the context of those "What should Wizards publish next?" or "Guess the mystery book" threads. In which case, if one is going to participate in those threads at all, opinion statements such as this don't seem out of place. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's about depriving people of pleasure. I don't have the sense that people are dropping "Greyhawk sucks" threads all willy-nilly.But I don't spend my time arguing that WoTC shouldn't publish those settings, and deprive people that do like them of the pleasure of seeing something they enjoy.
Yup. As I am both a Greyhawk fan as well as a psionics fan, I'm pretty hyper-aware of that BS.For a good example of that exact line of logic, go dig up the Psionics thread from a few months back. There were quite a few posts that came down to "we don't want WotC working on psionics because it will waste developer time that could be used on projects people actually want".
Same. As well, after years of making stuff for 5e, is it still so imperative that certain products not be made for fear of missing out on other stuff the designers could be doing?Yup. As I am both a Greyhawk fan as well as a psionics fan, I'm pretty hyper-aware of that BS.